Re^4: The & prototype and code references in scalars.

Thanks for the reference. I think I must have been away that day cos I do not remember that thread at all. And looking at my posting history, I didn't post anything that entire week.

With regard to \&{ $coderef } versus \&$coderef: I discovered long ago that

there is no performance difference between sigil{ $scalar } & sigil$scalar;
and that (for example) print for @{ $_[0] } works, where print for @$_[0] doesn't.

Hence, the 2-char longer (4 if you count my preferred whitespacing) form has no downsides and benefits from the extra clarity when the scalar being dereferenced comes from a compound source. Plus I do not have to try and remember when I have to use the longer form and when I can get away with the shorter. And I like consistency.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

"I'd rather go naked than blow up my ass"

Comment on Re^4: The & prototype and code references in scalars. Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: The & prototype and code references in scalars. by LanX (Saint) on Feb 18, 2010 at 00:25 UTC
Well `@$_[0]` parses as `@{$_}[0]` producing an arrayslice. My rule is simple, better use curlies when it gets long. Cheers Rolf	[reply] [d/l] [select]